US Forces Korea Commander Justin Brunson. [Yonhap News] 

The Korean Peninsula has become a flashpoint where international power struggles converge. Amidst the structural changes of North Korea's advancing nuclear capabilities, the prolonged US-China strategic competition, and the deepening ties between North Korea, China, and Russia, South Korea stands at the epicenter of geopolitical pressure. 

As the Russia-Ukraine war, Middle Eastern conflicts, and tensions in the Taiwan Strait become interconnected, projecting the world's divisions onto the Korean Peninsula, South Korea's security environment is no longer a regional issue but a stage for global conflict. 

Against this backdrop, on February 18th and 19th, following a standoff between US and Chinese fighter jets over the West Sea, the Minister of National Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff protested to US Forces Korea. US Forces Korea issued an unusually late-night statement, firmly stating they have never apologized for maintaining readiness and that the South Korean military's announcement was factually incorrect. 

This incident is not merely a difference in expression. It appears to be a crack in the ROK-US alliance, born from the structural vulnerabilities of the current security apparatus (National Security Office, Directors of National Intelligence Service, Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Unification). 

Alliance Cracks Deal a Direct Blow to Security, Diplomacy, and Economy

It was revealed that the US Forces Korea's aerial training over the West Sea was a pre-notified, routine exercise. Immediately after Chinese fighter jets scrambled in response, creating a high-tension situation with US and Chinese forces confronting each other over the West Sea, Minister An should have directed his displeasure at China, not the United States. 

With the situation reversed, the Ministry of National Defense announced, "We received an apology from the US," only for US Forces Korea to immediately retort, "We never apologized." Concerns are growing that this, far from coordinating alliance relations, may be making national survival itself difficult. 

Whenever South Korea's security policies and strategic judgments waver, the United States first examines whether there is a political undercurrent influenced by China behind such decisions. This incident was sufficient to fuel suspicions that the current administration is leaning towards China. 

The fall of South Vietnam after the US withdrawal during the Vietnam War offers a lesson: no matter how much an ally tries to help, the ultimate responsibility for national survival rests with the nation itself. While alliances are the foundation of security, autonomous security capabilities are a condition for survival. No country will help an army that has a confused concept of its primary enemy and lacks the will to fight it. If the United States were to adopt a higher level of negative stance towards the current administration, our economy would falter immediately. 

Confusion in Security Policy Hinders National Survival and National Interest 

US Forces Korea pointed out, "The selective disclosure of non-public senior-level discussions does not contribute to achieving alliance objectives." Confusion in the South Korean military's messaging is an area where the United States reacts most sensitively. This suggests that South Korea's management of foreign policy and security messages has already reached a dangerous level. When messages between allies falter, judgments waver, and when judgments waver, the entire operational environment becomes unstable. The public loses trust in security messages influenced by politics. 

In particular, the concern expressed by US Forces Korea regarding the restoration of the Sept. 19 Military Agreement and the expansion of the no-fly zone, stating it amounts to "the ROK military unilaterally restricting its own readiness posture," indicates that the United States harbors doubts about South Korea's strategic direction. 

Instability in the Chain of Command is a Consequence of Security Destruction

The critical issue highlighted by US Forces Korea in its statement was the fact that "the Ministry of National Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not promptly informed." This precisely targets where the South Korean military's internal system is faltering. 

Delayed reporting is not a mere administrative error but a signal that the fundamentals of the chain of command are collapsing. If reporting falters, judgment is delayed, and if judgment is delayed, response is also delayed. In a military organization, the most fatal threat is not from external forces but from internal reporting delays and decision-making inertia. 

The recent repeated changes in key personnel appointments, the departure of mid-career officers, and command vacuums are likely not unrelated to the current "apology controversy." Combat power stems not from equipment but from people and organizations. However, if the upper political structure and security line, which form the backbone of that organization, misjudge international affairs and are shaken by something, no advanced weapon can fulfill its role. An army with an unstable internal system will collapse first under external shocks.

This incident revealed simultaneous cracks in alliance coordination, confusion in security policies that even the alliance does not understand, and instability in the internal command structure. Security, the domain of survival for the public and the nation, cannot be a subject of the dignity of those in power or political calculations. 

The security line, rather than making further missteps due to bruised pride, must reflect on the dangerous direction taken so far, ensure accurate alliance coordination, consistent strategy, and clear judgment that faces international realities. 

The military must focus its efforts on stabilizing internal order and maintaining a unified command structure. It is also essential to prevent the departure of mid-career officers by restoring discipline and morale, and to establish an autonomous, decentralized structure that allows operational units to independently carry out their missions even if the command is temporarily shaken.

Public and military sentiment can no longer stand idly by while security is being destroyed by political stubbornness and absolutism. It is the least courtesy to the public for the current security line to take responsibility for this "apology controversy" and voluntarily step down.

We call for a complete overhaul of the security line, which, while recognizing the contradictions of civilian control that is subjective and political, is being passively utilized.

◆ Park Pil-gyu

Editorial Board Member, The Hankyoreh

40th graduating class, Korea Military Academy